AI versus Marshy - The Case for Cyborgs

I’ve been experimenting with AI-powered tools, and one of the most interesting ones I’ve come across is ChatGPT. This article explores some of the implications of using AI in our daily lives, particularly when it comes to copyright and intellectual property. Let’s dive into the case for cyborgs and see where it takes us. Singularity hinges on machines improving upon themselves until they learn how to learn and exponential improvements carry it to becoming far smarter than us. A sketch like Wait But Why but isn’t! A cyborg approach combines man and machine into something that steers us in a better direction as one combined with the other gets to a superior outcome than either one alone. This stuff tickles my brain, and there’s more detail in the linked article if you’re interested. What do you mean AI can’t copy everything? Covered in The Guardian . ​ What do you mean I can’t just copy everything? I’ve enjoyed following the Legal world tackle AI as it’s extremely uncharted waters when neither side has a compelling case. Copyright exists to protect a creator’s intellectual property. AI is currently trained on vast multitudes of intellectual property on the web (and elsewhere). Tools like ChatGPT wouldn’t exist if it stuck to the letter of the law and trained on nothing other than non-copyrighted material. The law is currently playing what role copyright plays in training. Originally appeared in newsletter : AI versus Marshy #29: voice-activated ChatGPT, brain machines, and is it right to copy?